Every Capitalist economy is a "mix of Communism and Capitalism", in the sense that a lot of the economic activity even in highly-Capitalist state is based on non-commodified, non-commercial, non-monetary work and cooperation.

The late David Graeber expanded on this point in "Debt: The First 5,000 Years".

While true, that's largely ortogonal to why China is so very much a dictatorship.

While I agree CPC is in ultimate control over government in China, and that China is a one-party state. I don't agree it to be a dictatorship.

I see dictatorship as monarchy in disguise. China's leadership as observed are not passed down within a singular family or families and the succession of which have not observed militarial coup. If the dictator can't have his/hers own blood-heir to take over, where is the dicatorship in this?

Hm, interesting place to draw a line in the sand.

Then we can’t know if a country was a dictatorship ship until a ruler dies. Also, all countries with despots ousted and replaced by others, disqualifies as dictatorships.

I don’t like your definition. I’d rather look for rule of law and signs of democracy. Both of which are very scarce in China.

Sucession of power in dictatorship is what I'd think an important attribute of it, not a definition.

Many of those despots have every intent and actions that we have observed to have their heirs assume office, only that it was stopped. It's about that they have that power in their form of government where they make all the calls, not them actually achiving it.

On the other hand, many of Xi's predecessors are well-alive, well, two of them, if they are/were dicators, what is Xi? There are three dictators at different times in China, with one in the office and the other two well and alive? I doubt dictatorship would be an accurate account for what's really going on.

Maybe we can settle for totalitarian.

In China it's referred to as 中国特色社会主义, which means "socialism with Chinese characteristics"

Which means "capitalism but we keep the authoritarian hierarchy because it benefits us".

China isn't capitalist at all. Even things like buying land are typically timed leases owned by the government, and you see behavior like the Jack Ma incident where he made a perceived insult to the central bank and was "punished". Tied into labor programs and social credit, you see patterns that wouldn't ever fly in capitalism.

Communism doesn't mean everyone gets free groceries and doesn't have to work. The CCP, for all of their faults, seriously puts a lot of time and thought into the elements of communism and how the Chinese communism compares and evolves on it as a longterm form of government. Just because someone on the internet mistakes utopianism for communism doesn't mean Mao's party isn't communist.

It's quite Capitalist. Government ownership simply means that government is the capitalist instead of it being some private Billionaire, or a collection of investors in a joint-stock company.

Communism _does_ mean - among other things - that "everyone gets free groceries", in the sense that they would not exchange money or another commodity for the groceries, but rather get them through wider collective/communal/regional/country-wide arrangements.

Communism still has currency.

I don't know why this is a popular misconception. You may have ration points or communism bucks instead of dollars, but you still need a hard currency to allow interpersonal trade. You may have resources that aren't obtainable through currency (housing), but you need currency because you need to settle preference/availability/tradeoffs. You probably also even still have some taxes for consumption.

The price of all goods is not equivalent on a fundamental labor level and the preference for goods is not flat.

China's is still full communist, but some tightly government-controlled capitalism has been allowed.

You might get away with it if it's still in the 80s.